In a fairly recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court, the central question was whether an employer was entitled to suspend wage payments because an employee who was unfit for work refused to cooperate with mediation. Both the company doctor and the UWV doctor considered the employee fit to participate in mediation, but the employee indicated that she did not want to have any discussions with her manager due to a disrupted relationship. How did the Subdistrict Court view the wage suspension and the employee's subsequent wage claim?

Facts and background of the dispute

The employee had been employed as Global Head of Customer Delivery Management since 2020. She managed five Customer Success Managers and received a gross monthly salary of €8,060. In June 2024, she reported sick with symptoms consistent with burnout. The company doctor determined that there were medical limitations, but that the goal remained to resume work in her own position. The company doctor also noted that relations within the team had been seriously disrupted and that the employee refused to accept leadership from a specific manager. There was a breakdown in communication.

In February 2025, the company doctor explicitly recommended starting mediation with a certified independent mediator. According to the company doctor, there was no medical reason why the employee could not maintain weekly contact with the employer, nor was there any medical impediment to mediation.

Shortly after the advice was given, the employee requested a postponement. She said she did not feel “mentally fit” for mediation and announced that she would request an expert opinion from the UWV. The mediator nevertheless invited her for an initial meeting, after which the employee again requested a postponement. On 27 February 2025, employer warned her that her wages would be suspended if she did not contact the mediator and her manager by 5 March 2025 at the latest. The employee did not respond to this request. The employer then stopped paying her wages as of 5 March 2025.

Later in March, both parties requested an expert opinion. The UWV determined that the employee had no viable options during the relevant period, but did have to cooperate with mediation as soon as circumstances permitted. It was noteworthy that, in the UWV investigation, the employee indicated that she was willing to participate in mediation, contrary to her earlier refusal to the employer and the mediator. After the employer received the expert opinion, it approached the mediator again. It was not until 15 May 2025 that the employee actually declared her willingness to participate in mediation. An initial meeting with the mediator took place on 3 June 2025. Employer resumed payment of wages with retroactive effect from 13 May 2025, but refused to pay for the preceding period.

Legal assessment framework

The key question was whether the employer's request, namely to cooperate with mediation and maintain contact with the manager, qualified as a reasonable instruction within the meaning of Section 7:629(3)(d) of the Dutch Civil Code. If an employee refuses, without valid reason, to cooperate with a reasonable instruction aimed at reintegration, the right to wages lapses.

The subdistrict court emphasised that mediation in employment law is a tool widely recommended by company doctors when communication between employee and employer has completely broken down. The aim of mediation is to achieve dialogue and solutions under the guidance of an independent third party. Mediation is particularly appropriate when an employee indicates that they have a poor relationship with their manager. The employee cannot therefore use this poor relationship as an argument for rejecting mediation. That would undermine the essence of mediation.

Assessment by the subdistrict court

The employee argued that she did not have to communicate with the manager in question because of a poor working relationship and that she was entitled to request a postponement of mediation for medical reasons. That reasoning did not hold up. According to the company doctor, the employee was capable of mediating and weekly contact with the employer was medically possible. Furthermore, the employee had not demonstrated that her psychological complaints made it impossible for her to attend an intake interview. She had not asked the company doctor for further explanation on this point, nor had she submitted a second opinion.

The subdistrict court considered it significant that the employee not only refused mediation, but also did nothing to move the process forward. She took no initiative towards the mediator, did not contact the employer and waited for the employer to take action. This passive behaviour was held against her. The fact that the employee expressed her willingness to participate in mediation to the UWV but not to her employer also undermined her credibility.

In short: employer's requirement was reasonable, there was no medical contraindication, and the employee had no valid grounds for her refusal. The wage suspension was therefore justified.

Link to judgment.

Practical Implications

This ruling emphasises that employees are obliged to comply with reasonable instructions in the context of reintegration, especially when these instructions are directly based on the advice of the company doctor or are confirmed by an expert opinion from the UWV.

It is also important to note that a disrupted relationship with a manager cannot serve as an excuse to refuse mediation. It is precisely in such situations that mediation is the appropriate tool for restoring dialogue. An employee who decides to request a postponement must also substantiate this with objective medical data. Personal feelings or subjective assessments are insufficient.

For employers, this ruling supports the strict application of Section 7:629 of the Dutch Civil Code, provided that they act with due care. It is important that clear written warnings are given, that the employee is informed of the possible consequences of refusal and that the employer consistently follows the advice of the company doctor.

For employees, this ruling emphasises that refusal of mediation entails risks, including loss of wages and possibly even further labour law measures.

Questions about mediation, wage suspension or reintegration obligations?

The employment law team at SPEE advocaten & mediation is happy to advise you on reintegration issues, mediation processes and the application of wage sanctions. Please feel free to contact us.